Most of the world supports the war against terror (i.e. against Al Qaeda and its simpathisers); even France and Germany, which are the focus of so much criticism now, helped us out in Afghanistan. It is the war in Iraq that most of the world (understandably, IMHO) has a problem with.

Yeah, I agree. When the entire country sings around and celebrates when one of our spaceshuttles falls out of the sky and everyone wants to blow the US out of the water...that signifies they just might want to do bad things to the US. We have every right to fear Iraq and want to prevent anything from happening.

In my opinion here, I dont think it was Afghanistan that did the 9/11 destruction. Of course, It was Iraq. And even hearing that maybe the Saudis were involved too.

But anyway, whats with the 180? I thought esp. the USA were pro-war against Iraq.

Jeez, I dont want to sound crewl but lets say another 9/11 type incident happened today killing as many as 3000 + people, are we still going to protest out there???? Give me some feedback on this. Please. I dont like traders, esp. on our soil.

"In my opinion here, I dont think it was Afghanistan that did the 9/11 destruction. Of course, It was Iraq."

It was Al Qaeda that did it... and they were based in Afghanistan at the time. Sure, Iraq is an evil regime and has defied the international community many times, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it was involved in the 9/11 attacks. You need to brush up on your current events, Wardialer.

Doh! Wardialer, Saddam has a very tight grip on power, a very small inner circle, a massive security/secret police apparatus, even apparently multiple doubles of himself, he's had many attempts on his life over the years, all from internal enemies.
Face it, if the US could not get OBL, virtually no chance of getting Saddam.
As for Iraqi's celebrating Columbia's loss, a group of government supporters (or even people just forced into joining a crowd) on a staged rally, is not the same as the 'Iraqi people'.
Most of the unfortunates living in Iraq don't even know it happened.
Ever seen a proper report from inside Iraq?
Let's just say it is not like living in the West, one of the best books about Saddam's Iraq is well named - 'Republic Of Fear'.
As for them doing Sept 11th, please explain why there has been absolutely no proof, even after Bush told the CIA to find it, well they've tried, and it isn't there.
Had there been, Iraq would have been attacked long ago.
Or did we go into Afghanistan just for the scenery?

The world is against it because the fact that 3000 people died on 9/11 has NOTHING TODO WITH IRAQ. There is no legitimate "war on terror". Indeed, enough time has passed to call a spade a spade.

Most of those who died in the WTC's on Sep 11th 2001 did so because of poor structural design of the building, the planes were merely a catalyst. If the buildings had been properly built the death toll would have been much lower.

Quite frankly people, the world is sick to death of this ignorant generalisation of a war on terror. It's nothing more than an excuse used by George Bush to fool the masses and fooled they are.

and quite frankly WAR KILLS THE INNOCENT and many people find the deaths of innocent people to be quite offensive.

Not everyone lives in a country that thrives on war, that was created on war and that has even warred with itself. Many of us know what true peace and safety, you should try it one day .. it's fantastic!

So how many civilians will be killed in the war to Iraq? How many soldiers who follow the commands from their commanders will lost their lives? The soldiers will always proud of serving their country, but most of them will regret when they get injured or even losing their life. Look at the history of Galipolli, watch the movie, and you will know more about the soldiers. You think the soldiers deserve to die in the war?

The world is not only against the war, but also the policies of US. Why Hussein got his power? Why he still got his power as concrete after the 10 years war with Iran? Don't tell me that you know nothing about the CIA history. Why Bin Laden got a lot of guns etc? Soviet Union. How can he defeat the world giant? Think about it. Everything is from the US, their ex-presidents, and their still existing policies. Think more about it.

Here in Melbourne, got almost 200,000 people protesting on last Friday. Sydney got more people protesting today, almost 250,000. However, our John Howard still insist to go ahead for the war, to 'liberate' the Iraq people. North Korea is the nest target for sure.

Don't use your way of rules to measure the other people. If they think there are some problems with it, they will speak out.

I feel these protests, perhaps unintentionally, gave aid and comfort to Saddam.

Saddam probably feels that general world opinion has shifted to his side which might increase his intransigance (sp.) to comply to U.N mandate. This will likely increase, not reduce, the chance of war.

I do not want a war, but if you want the world to support the war against terrorism, do yourself a favour... do the following thing:

1. Stuff Rumsfeld and his "You're either with us or with them" attitude. It won't win you friends (and you need friends when you want to invade another sovereign state)
2. Be persuasive... This is something Rumsfeld can not do. Powell can do it better. Blair even more effective... his speech this weekend beats any speech by the Bush administration so far.
3. Make up your mind... war on terror, or war against tyrants? If you want to link them both, provide the proof. If they don't believe you, go back to pt. 1 and 2. above.
4. Make up your mind again... War to Disarm Saddam, or War to Topple Saddam ? Stick to one, and persuade others to join... (again, back to pt. 1 and 2. above).
5. If in opposition, make a public commitment on a post war Iraq, and stick to it ! Post Gulf War 1 was a shambles and I am not surprised that even the Iraq opposition are worried about the current war...

So, if any Republican Hawks are reading this... take note... continue down the current path, and you'll never get support, no matter how right you are... Persuade the world the right way, they'll support you, no matter if you're wrong!

"Most of those who died in the WTC's on Sep 11th 2001 did so because of poor structural design of the building, the planes were merely a catalyst. If the buildings had been properly built the death toll would have been much lower."

That is a purely hypothetical statement. The buildings themselves took the impact of the aircraft. When you have thousands of gallons of Jet-A rip through a building and melt the steel, of course it's going to fall. The structures were sound. You can't help the steel melting.

And as far as what Gerry said above, I agree. I love my country, and my fellow Americans. However, I don't agree with or condone a lot of the stuff my governement does. I think that they do approach some situations a little awkwardly, as far as attitude goes, and it hurts us diplomatically. However I do feel that Saddam and his regime needs to be removed from power. If Bush's daddy would've let Schwartzkopf take Baghdad 12 years ago, we wouldn't have this situation right now. Good job senior. Like father, like son.

Bryan
Chat Operator Delta767

Too often we ... enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Geez, these international protests aren't pro-Saddam at all! They are anti-invasion.

Consider this:

"My name is George and I think that my neighbour who lives in the next town may posess an illegal gun. I've heard off a few of my friends down at the supermarket that he has one. My neighbour (Saddam) lives in a small house on some prime real-estate. What I'm going to do is talk to all of my neighbours in my street and we are going to grab our pitchforks and flaming sticks and burn down Saddams house, take his gun and kick him out of town (After all - Saddam is not a nice neighbour and plays loud music late at night).

But, my nearest neighbours want me to go to the police and talk to them about this evil man who may have an illegal gun and hope that they take action."

The police head onto Saddam's property and go and look for the gun. In the meantime George and his friends John and Tony have set up camp in the house next door to Saddams to send a clear message to Saddam. All three friends speak very loudly in the street and rhetorically threaten Saddam every day of the week. The police continue to search the property.

After a while George comes out and shouts over a loudspeaker: "If the police don't find Saddams illegal gun then we are going to go into his house and take it, then kick him out of town and burn down his house".

The police say that although they can't stop george from doing such a thing, they strongly disapprove.

Georges other neighbours and friends start to worry. If he can do this to one person and their house - who is next?

** In next weeks episode: Will George let the police do their work and allow justice to prevail? Will George torch Saddams house and kill all of his innocent family? Will the police find a gun???

TUNE IN NEXT WEEK TO FIND OUT!

Lets follow a more judicial process here and not allow such vigilante action.

Have faith that the UN will enforce 1441 as you have faith that Police and the justice system prosecute crime and defend our way of life.

Delta ,
You must remember that it was not Bush senior who stopped the troops advancing into Iraq in 1991,it was that the UN manadate did not allow it. War is not nice and should be avoided, but there comes a time when it is the better of two evils
regards little vc10

Its in black and white everyone, Iraq has not told us where their antrax, VX, etc are as they are supposed to. They also haven't proven its been destroyed as required in 1441. Those missiles break another resolution. Iraq is clearly in violation of 1441, which gives Saddam a "final chance to disarm" and if he doesn't requires "serious consequences" be laid down against Iraq. Sitting on our ass givng Saddam more inspectors to lie to is not "serious consequences."

Anyone who is protesting the war is supporting Saddam, directly or indirectly. It is telling Saddam, "We want you to keep your weapons because of the possibility some people may die." And that makes Saddam think, "Oh, they want me to keep my weapons so I can use them on these people in the future."

Most of those who died in the WTC's on Sep 11th 2001 did so because of poor structural design of the building, the planes were merely a catalyst. If the buildings had been properly built the death toll would have been much lower.

I believe it's unreasonable to expect architects to take into consideration the fact that their buildings might someday be crash targets for 2 or more full size airliner jets. In my opinion, the WTC took quite an unexpected beating and handled it remarkably well. Can you even begin to imagine the tremendous forces involved when the first 767 crashed into the WTC? When was the last time you surveyed the entire width and mammoth size of a 767?

Let's not lose perspectives here; most of those who died in the WTC on Sept 11, 2001 did so because of a ruthless terrorist attack, the sheer grandeur of which was before now utterly inconceivable, and not because of any architectual design flaws.

If Iraq is a "terrorist state" because of it's association with the known terrorist group Al Queda, then doesn't that make the US a "terrorist state" because of it's association with Timothy McViegh?? How about the various state "militia" groups that are secretly planning against the US government to:

How about Israel? They are arguably home of several terrorist groups. Aren't they then a "terrorist state"? How about Ireland, Syria, Lebanon? Or the Phillipines. Why aren't we bombing them? Oh I forgot. They don't have any oil.....

Why is the world against war? Forgive me but that is about the most idiotic statement I've read on this forum!

Because 9/11 has nothing to do with Iraq. The Bush regime has tried desperately to link the events of 9/11 and terrorism to justify their war with Iraq. Fortunately, the world's citizens have not been fooled with these false accusations, as seen by the millions of anti-war protestors around the world. The case for military action has not been made, there is no proof, no evidence, and no justification for this war.

1. Attacking Iraq will kill hundreds of thousand of people.
2. It will be a recruitment drive for every anti-western terrorist group.
3. It will cost billions of dollars
4. It will make the USA / UK look like hypocrites, on the one hand they say, "But Saddam has invaded his neighbor's and gassed his own people", when the truth is that the USA and UK paid and encouraged Saddam in his war against Iran, sold him the chemical weapons which killed 5000 civilians and continued to sell him WMD until the '91 war.
US $ also paid for the Contras in Nicaragua, the IRA, the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen etc. etc.
5.While our armed forces are away in Iraq, what happens if N.Korea kicks off, or Japan gets nervous and launches its threatened pre-emptive strike?
6. The travel industry will go down the pan
7. OBL will have lots of propaganda and his support will grow.
8. Events like Sep 11, will be a regular occurrence across the globe, due to a surge in terrorism and Islamic fanaticism.
9. I'm very patriotic to the UK and I'm a big fan of the USA, so I don't want our governments to commit mass murder for the sake of saving face and winning votes. I really think Rumsfeld and Bush are the worst thing to happen to the USA in years.

Hepkat: "Can you even begin to imagine the tremendous forces involved when the first 767 crashed into the WTC? When was the last time you surveyed the entire width and mammoth size of a 767?"

Indeed, Hepkat. I was just doing that in MCO this week as I stared at a DL 767 parked at its gate. It really puts it into perspective. Also, folks need to keep in mind that the the WTC WAS designed to withstand an airliner collision (presumed accidental), however, it was the 707 of the day that was taken into consideration not the massive 767.

PS-I think to say the 'world is against war' is inaccurate. There are supporters and there are protesters. The 'world' is split.

There are some very good arguments for getting rid of Saddam (see my thread in this section... http://www.airliners.net/discussions/non_aviation/read.main/338111/ ), and the threat of war may just do the job. Saddam may not be directly linked to 9/11 (although I have no doubt he and bin Laden are allies now) but there are long-standing issues over weapons of mass destruction that have not been resolved over 12 years.

Today, we see a softening in the US and allied positions, as well as a more cooperative posture on Saddam's part. There is also a growing movement in the Arab world to get Saddam out of Iraq peacefully. None of this would be happening if the US and our allies have not made the threat of war a distinct possibility.

I don't want to see a war either, but mainly because I don't want to see American and allied lives sacrificed for the benefit of the Arab world, nor for the benefit of the likes of France, Germany etc.

Personally, it's gotten to the point where I really don't have an opinion either way. I've grown weary of the constant discussion, both in the media and on this website. Attack Iraq, or go home--just shut up about it already.

Wardialer...dont worry once Iraq is liberated the rest of the world will be on board.

Also most of eastern europe supports the United States and there are only a few western european countries that are hindering us at this point (i.e. germany and france).

I notice people are saying many people will die as a result of military intervention. The U.S. led coalition will do everything in its power to prevent civilian casualties as was done in 1991. In the long term more lives will be saved with saddam gone (i.e. no more sanctions).

With all due respect, you have no possible way to know that. Protesters are certainly louder and making the bigger fuss and you're mistaking this louder noise as an overwhelming majority. That's always the way it is. Add up the protest attendance and compare to the population and you'll see its a very small %.

Undoubtedly so, but the spilit is not an even one. Outside of the United States, there is overwhelming opposition to any attack on Iraq without a UN mandate.

I still have faith in the US Government that they will use rhetoric and the threat of force against Saddam, but stop short of actually invading without a UN mandate. To act unilaterally will throw away over 200 years of proud American history in one fell swoop.

"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada

"Also most of eastern europe supports the United States and there are only a few western european countries that are hindering us at this point (i.e. germany and france)."

True, but what you omitted to say is that these Eastern European countries all have a terrible economy. Since the US has already showed they are more than willing to "sponsor" such countries (like with Turkey) through bilateral agreements (outside NATO or UN) in exchange for their support, you cannot call their support to the US as completely honest, to say the least.

To JetService:

"With all due respect, you have no possible way to know that. Protesters are certainly louder and making the bigger fuss and you're mistaking this louder noise as an overwhelming majority. That's always the way it is. Add up the protest attendance and compare to the population and you'll see its a very small %."

With all my respects, but what a load of rubbish you are saying here.

Right after the 9/11 attackt, 100,000 people protested against terrorism in Ottawa, Canada. Now Ottawa has a population of some 1,100,000 people
With you logic, this means that almost 90% of the people of Ottawa were pro-terrorism!

Schoen: "With all my respects, but what a load of rubbish you are saying here"

You've obviously mistaken my point to read that people that don't participate in protests are for the war. I never said that, and I know that that is not true. My point is that there is a misconception caused by coverage of protesters in cities across the world that 'the world is against the war'. All I'm saying is that the protesters make up a small % of the population, but 100% of the coverage. That is what's causing the misconception. There are millions against action for various reasons and millions that support action if they see it necessary. One cannot say the 'world is against the war'. It simply paints an inaccurate picture.

"Yes. If you define "friends" as those who blindly follow without question."

Airplay,

Merely disagreeing with the US does not make one an enemy, nor does merely agreeing make one a friend. What I find particularly offensive is the method that some western European countries (who shall remain nameless) use to disagree.

OK, I get your point. It is a misconception that "the world is against the war" or that "the world is for a war". Neither of these are thruth if one looks at the worlds' entire population.

But by using this same arguement, one can also say that the percentage of people that do support a war, is very small compared with "the rest of the world".

Taking into account that, around the world, the protests that took place yesterday were only comparable with the protests against the war in Vietnam, this does tell us something about the opposition to this war, around the globe.

Delta-flyer:

"I have yet to hear a logical argument as to how it would benefit the US to invade Iraq vis-a-vis oil. Why not Saudi Arabia - they have more oil? What's wrong with the status quo?"

Because the US doesn't have (yet) any problem with the Saudi regime, something which can't be said about the Saudi people. Since the US does not want to rely in a great part on the Saudis alone (Saudi Arabia is in 2nd place, after Canada, as it comes to the US's oil imports) and taking into account that there is a growing criticism on the Saudi government, the US has to look for other "sources" to assure their oil reserves for the next 10-15 years.

"You really don't know that, Klaus. This sort of campaign is best done in the background."

And when it comes to operating in the background, I am confident the US Government will do everything it can with its NSA and CIA, like they have done in the past in Chile and Nicaragua, for example, to protect US interest!

And when it comes to operating in the background, I am confident the US Government will do everything it can with its NSA and CIA, like they have done in the past in Chile and Nicaragua, for example, to protect US interest!

And the CIA, NSA, DIA, and the rest, should not be looking out for US interests? And since when does the CIA, NSA, DIA, and the rest, have to share what they're doing covertly with you or the rest of the world?

Aak777 - "I believe that all what US wants is oil, knowing that USA has only about 16 years of oil reserve, where Iraq has about 500 years of oil reserve.
to me this is so obvious."

But to everyone else this makes you look ignorant. It has been discussed over and over again and pretty much everyone agrees oil is not the main priority. Especially because we get oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela.